Afternoon:
10°c
Watchdog told gun police to stop comparing notes
Justin Davenport, Crime Correspondent12 Sep 2008
The practice of firearms officers comparing notes should have been stopped before the fatal shooting of barrister Mark Saunders, the Independent Police Complaints Commission will tell the High Court today.
Mr Saunders's sister Charlotte has brought an action at the High Court seeking a declaration that the investigation is unlawful because of the risk of "collusion" by police officers who were allowed to confer together before making their statements.
Mr Saunders, 32, died of multiple bullet wounds after a five-hour siege at his Chelsea flat.
Mr Saunders, who worked as a divorce lawyer, died after shooting at police officers and neighbours with a legally-owned shotgun from his £2.2 million Markham Square home.
The IPCC, which is investigating the death of Mr Saunders, called for the practice of firearms officers comparing notes to be stamped out after the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. In the IPCC's skeleton argument-to be delivered at the High Court today in the case of Mr Saunders, it will brand the practice of conferring as "unacceptable" and "likely to undermine public confidence in the police".
According to the court papers, the IPCC will argue that it has " repeatedly attempted to reform the practice", drawing particular attention to the fatal shootings of Harry Stanley in 1999 and Jean Charles de Menezes in 2006.
On each occasion the IPCC actively sought to reform the practice and issued repeated statements of its intent. However, ACPO and the Police Federation have been reluctant to withdraw the right of conference because firearms officers might fear self-incrimination in a solitary interview and this reluctance could further delay the investigation process.
In April 2008, the Police Federation issued a response to the IPCC that said: "Firearms officers are invariably high-quality, dedicated officers who would be anxious not to do anything to obstruct proper investigation" and that changing the rules "could only be construed as a move which overtly places them under suspicion as soon as any serious incident takes place."
In its attempt to reform the current system the IPCC even went as far as to ask the Home Office to extend its powers to compel police witnesses to attend interviews, but the Home Office failed to respond "positively", the police watchdog claims in the court documents.
Currently the IPCC has no power to prevent officers from conferring.
Yesterday it denied reports by Mr Saunders's family that he posed no lethal threat before he was shot by police. The case continues today.
Reader views (12)
It's incredible that an otherwise sensible organisation like the IPCC has so badly failed to do its homework on this. Since the 1980s, it has been well recognised that "perceptual distortion" is almost inevitable at times of extreme stress, and post-shooting stress has a huge impact on all of the officers involved, not just those who fire (see numerous papers by Mary Manolias, a respected Home Office research psychologist).
The "team huddle" post-shooting is an essential part of the force's responsibility to those officers as part of Health & Safety, and to be blunt, if this is taken away, almost all of the officers attached to firearms duties will hand in their firearms authorities, as they are perfectly legally entitled to do. They are paid the same as all other officers and this continued attack on the tried and proven methods of their operation is based on politics and ignorance of the issues.
If the IPCC doesn't like it, then they might have to carry the guns and do the job themselves: the highly professional and expertly-trained firearms officers currently doing so are getting dangerously near the end of their patience with this sort of uninformed rubbish from the IPCC and no wonder.
- William Old, London, UK, 12/10/2008 03:46
Report abuse
At times of stress, the mind focuses on gross motor skills. Often, post-incident, an officer will forget minor, unimportant details. If officers were not to confer whilst making notes, these minor discrepancies would be used by defence solicitors to rip most prosecution cases to shreds.
Where some of you people get these ideas from about the police I do not know. James of New Malden, you are very misguided and ignorant.
- Keith Mckenzie, Islington, 14/09/2008 22:58
Report abuse
The clear majority of people shot by the police are either completely innocent (e.g. Stephen Waldorf, Jean Charles de Menezes, Harry Stanley, James Ashley, Derek Bennett) or disturbed people like Mark Saunders who did not deserve to die. The actual number of occasions when a police marksman has killed a real villain armed with a loaded weapon is very small. No British police officer has ever even received a caution for killing an innocent man.
- Patrick Hadley, London, 14/09/2008 20:32
Report abuse
At the end of the day, this story is nothing to do with whether the police colluded as regards their stories, whether his sister would like to make it so or not. Her brother clearly had some kind of breakdown and started shooting randomly, into his neighbours homes, gardens, etc. Personally I think thank god the police did their job, as I'm sure many would if this man had been shooting into their homes. He may have been a barrister, but that does not stop him being a basic criminal at the end !!
- Louise, Essex, 13/09/2008 23:21
Report abuse
Maybe you all don't realise that this is legal and has been so since the 50's for the Police, what is illegal is having a shot gun and firing indiscrimantly at all and sundry.
- Pat, sussex, 13/09/2008 10:23
Report abuse
Because unlike all the above, the police are not first given the oppertunity to speak to a solicitor before giving what is , in essence, an interview in what will be considered a murder investigation (by the media even if not by the courts). And there is no right to remain silent for them either.
I would rather have 19 on call than not. Face it people, the police just cant do the job with a wooden stick any more. Society has changed.
- Gregg, London, 13/09/2008 09:19
Report abuse
The simple answer to the 3 previous comments is simply that the police consider themselves above the law and that they do not have to comply woth the law as we mere members of the public have to.
This practice is not retricted to the firearms squad but all coppers compare notes in fact if I remember rightly it is a recognised fact by the courts that one copper can write the notes and all the others copy them and that is taken as fact that they all saw or did what is written in the notebooks.
The other point about the firearms squad being gung ho and trigger happy is shown by the fact that it appears that firearms officers have killed or injured more innocent victims and themselves than they have armed dangerous criminals.
- John, east london, 13/09/2008 00:01
Report abuse
I think if you will check your special officers you will see that they are a hard drinking macho lot of boys. They are not better educated than any other member of the force except with weapons. They have a problem handling their emotions in times of stress and are not prepared for the job.
- Rich, London, UK, 12/09/2008 23:41
Report abuse
James from Surrey....
Where is the evidence to suggest CO19 are "trigger happy clowns"?
How many firearm incidents are they called to per year? How many shots are actually fired?
Check the statistics and I think you may revise your position.
- Mike, Herts, 12/09/2008 21:26
Report abuse
The SO19 Police are gung ho trigger happy clowns who frequently get it wrong. They are simply not up to the job and the whole post operation collusion is utterly disgustingly rotten. They should all be forced to make statements in isolation immediately after the incident and these should be submitted to an independent legal civilian panel.
I wonder why they don't do this? What are they afraid of?
This stinks.
- James, New Malden, Surrey, 12/09/2008 13:53
Report abuse
What possible argument is there against preventing the police from "pooling notes" i.e. making sure that they all say the same thing in their witness statements.
If you or I are involved in an incident that the police are investigating do you really think that the police would allow us to confer before taking statements, Of course not.
Consider the case of fatal road accident between a police car and an ambulance. The police in the police car will be able to confer before making a statement to make sure that they get their stories straight, but the ambulance man/women will be arrested (by the police) at the scheme and not allowed to confer before their statements are taken.
What is it that elevates the police to this uniquely preferred position?
- Harold, London, London, 12/09/2008 13:05
Report abuse
I dont see why they should collude, this should be banned, seems like when joe public is arrested, he is not allowed to confer with fellow arresttees, why should the police be allowed to?
- Hafizur Rahman, London, Stratford, 12/09/2008 12:13
Report abuse
